In my assessment President-Elect Donald Trump’s promise of a “mass deportation” of illegal migrants was his biggest campaign promise. At Outside the Beltway James Joyner considers the prospects for such an action:
President-Elect Donald Trump placed “the border” at the center of his re-election campaign, pledging “mass deportation.” At least 11 million people are living in the United States in violation of our immigration laws. Many of us have argued that there’s no feasible way to deport all of them and that any attempt to do so would be at a horrific humanitarian cost.
We’re about to find out the administration’s actual policies and how much support he can get for them in a Republican-majority Congress.
He goes on to consider the political and legal prospects for “mass deportation” and what the president-elect’s transition team is doing. James writes:
Here, I haven’t the foggiest what the courts will do. The overwhelming number of those claiming asylum are gaming the system, as they rather clearly don’t qualify for the exceedingly narrow provisions of the applicable law. But there is, in fact, applicable law—including international treaties ratified by the Senate—that would seem to require at least some modicum of due process to ensure that we don’t deport legitimate claimants. That the system is being gamed is extremely frustrating, but I don’t see how we can simply ignore the law.
with which I am in material agreement.
What I favor is rendering people here illegally materially incapable of working legally in the United States. I believe that alone would result in mass self-deportation. Tightening considerably on those here illegally working will require some form of eVerify with severe penalties on employers for non-compliance. Donald Trump has opposed those measures in the past.
I’m completely against the nightmare scenario that I suspect many envision: jackbooted immigration enforcement officers going house-to-house and dragging those here illegally (or whom they believe to be here illegally) out to waiting railway cars. BTW something not unlike that happened in the 1930s under presidents Hoover and Roosevelt. It included many who were here legally and even people born here.
However, there’s something that those opposed to mass deportations should remember. If all of those here illegally who have committed crimes other than immigration crimes here or in their countries of origin were deported, it would still be the largest mass deportation in American history. I think that’s a good place to start.
Apprehensions the last month or two are below what they were during the Trump years. That correlates with our drop in employment numbers. Immigration largely correlates with our employment rates/job availability.
As was noted in the Texas Tribune article, states like Texas make a big show about busing out illegals while refusing to enact or enforce laws in areas where they know 50% or more of the workers are illegals. They want the jobs filled and as cheaply as possible. So we know how this will play out. Trump and cronies will arrange for some very visible deportations of some largish groups from places like NYC, Chicago or LA to point out that liberals are hiding illegals. What they will not do is go after illegals where they exist in even larger numbers, easy to find but a necessary part of the economy that makes living in those red states cheaper than living in some of the blue states.
Steve
Dave Schuler: If all of those here illegally who have committed crimes other than immigration crimes here or in their countries of origin were deported, it would still be the largest mass deportation in American history.
Let’s round everything up. If 1% of 12 million undocumented immigrants are criminals, that would be 120,000. During the Eisenhower-era “Operation Wetback” campaign, as many as a million people were deported. Trump has proposed to deport 12 million people.
Of course, that number doesn’t include legal Haitian immigrants who are “eating the dogs” and “eating the cats,” nor does it include white immigrants who overstayed their visas, such as Elon Musk.
This is probably what will happen:
1. Trump rescinds Biden’s executive orders and policies early on. Biden has issued hundreds of immigration EOs. Almost immediately the status quo of anybody that interacted with immigration authorities during the Interregnum will be uncertain of their situation. People paroled or given deferred status will need to make decisions. Trump immigration EOs will follow.
2. IMS officials hired in positions to review and reverse amnesty denials will be fired or reassigned.
3. A lot will depend on Trump’s A.G. Immigration judges aren’t Article 3 courts, the A.G. can create precedent and overrule their decisions. The new A.G. will drop lawsuits against states enforcing immigration law. Trump may have difficulty getting his nominations approved in the Senate.
4. Congress will probably try to pass some form of the HR2 Border bill that passed the House and was refused an opportunity to vote in the Senate. It included E-Verify requirements. The bill would presumably pass a Republican Congress again, but might need modification to get through the Senate.
5. Trump will probably (any day now) make threats to Mexico insisting they continue the policies it used to help Biden.
As these steps take place, the media and NGOs will decry every move (using anachronistic terms like “due process”), which will have the effect of discouraging people from coming to the U.S. and encouraging some self-deport. Trump will be seen as taking decisive action.
One of the best ways for Democrats to get back in power will be for immigration to become a less saliant issue. They will be torn between leading the resistance and hoping that the immigration crisis goes away.
I think that’s about right, PD. The concern may be that President Trump will try to impose something more kinetic early on.
The GOP has always shied away from E-Verify. I think it’s unlikely they pass anything to make it required. If they do, I predict it wont be enforced or only very selectively. Anyway, the real reason immigration will slow down will be the economy slowing.
Steve
I’m not convinced that a slowing economy will decrease immigration. Historically, that hasn’t been the case as this post from Migration Policy Institute rather clearly illustrates. It takes legal barriers and enforcement.
That’s not surprising. The U. S. economy not doing as well as it did last year or five years ago isn’t important to migrants. That the U. S. economy is doing better than the economies of their countries of origin does.
Dave Schuler: Historically, that hasn’t been the case as this post from Migration Policy Institute rather clearly illustrates.
The chart isn’t granular enough to show recessions. The US economy has generally expanded over longer time periods.
Migration can be attributed to push and pull theories. The classical pull theory is that emigrants are well-informed rational actors that are pulled to new countries by known economic opportunities.
Push theories look to conditions in the country of origin, such as poverty, overpopulation, technological change (i.e. agricultural mechanization), violence, war, etc. Also important are social networks between countries, particularly kinfolk.
I think immigration is driven by both push and pull factors as mediated by (perceived) costs. I don’t think it matters much if the American economy slows if economic opportunities are relatively worse in the country of origin or if the slowdown is global. And if there are no “push” factors in play at all, we are wasting a lot of time and resources on non-existent asylum claims.
Got to keep the MAGA folks riled up some how, loose them then the gig is up.
Zachriel:
Is this sufficiently granular for you?
Screenshot[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_59770" align="aligncenter" width="1876"]
Basically, it tells the same story. Immigration slows SLIGHTLY during recessions or crises (like COVID lockdowns). That’s consistent with PD’s observation: the push factors are more significant than the pull factors. The primary push factors are low wages and unemployment in the countries of origin.
Dave Schuler: Is this sufficiently granular for you? . . . Immigration slows SLIGHTLY during recessions or crises (like COVID lockdowns).
The only recession showing is the COVID recession, which was historically short.
As the US economy keeps expanding over the long run, market forces continue to attract workers over the long run. US-born workers generally become more productive and immigrants fill less skilled slots in the economy. The US has low unemployment, so removing foreign-born workers will result in labor shortages, unless other factors (such as a tariff war) result in low economic growth.
Dave Schuler: That’s consistent with PD’s observation: the push factors are more significant than the pull factors. The primary push factors are low wages and unemployment in the countries of origin.
Political instability is one of the strongest factors, which we can see as different regions (e.g. Venezuela and Haiti) experience emigration at different times.
Whats the left axis?
Steve
steve: Whats the left axis?
Millions of foreign-born in the US. That includes naturalized citizens, legal students and workers, refugees, and undocumented migrants.